Judgment

02/18/2012

Narrative Part II

NAR·RA·TIVE

a story or account of events, experiences, orthe like, whether true or fictitious.

2.

a book, literary work, etc., containing such astory.

3.

the art, technique, or process of narrating:Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

Politically Correct

Before investigating the roots of communism in our culture and especially in our colleges, I presumed the dissidents were working very slowly to remain undiscovered, but that assumption proved why assumptions can get you killed. In fact, from 1967, this counter culture morphed within two years and grew like a metastasized cancer of revolutionary violence from the education industry onto the broader culture. Those entering the institutions of higher learning are predominantly impressionable young adults still pliable from parenting. (which is the instillation of discipline and virtue) Twenty years after the close of WWII, parents were astonished to discover their kids were filled with horrific ideals upon returning home from college. They went to college Christians and came home not just unbelieving, but atheist antagonists toward all religions but especially Christianity. Went patriotic, came back anti-American. Went dependent on church and local community for compassionate outreach and came home making demands on government for compassion programs, making passionate arguments for Socialism. Went ready to join the productive community and returned prepared to collapse the economy and grind down American values.

In many circumstances the graduates are not made aware of these ideas' origins. They are simply sold and believe in the communist principles without knowing or having questioned their consequences. So they take these values with them into their workplaces and social circles and apply them as their default choice to correct perceived problems or even contrive problems to correct capitalism's weaknesses. Later on, they may hear a charismatic define Communism then become an overt advocate of this failed system, otherwise they remain a silent advocate.

Many intelligent voices on the right are former Democrats who say their party moved away from their values. The extreme Left moved the Democrat Party from promoting self preservation and self determination to government protection and dependence. That is only the 'change' recognizable to the average citizen eventually (30 years in the making) enraging them enough to get into the fray and oppose their agenda push through the TEA party demonstrations. That visible change is what drove me to investigate the 'movement' further. Now that I'm looking deeper, the 'change' is terrifying.

What began as compassion motivation, (legupprograms) morphed into the dependence motivation, (handout programs) which attract huge campaign donations and special interest PAC (Political Action Committee) activist support. You will never hear a Democrat politician today, call for the people to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." of earlier Democrats. The right have their share of massive program defenders as well, though they mouth the smaller government sentiments of the conservative core. When conservative president, George W. Bush asked Congress to move Social Security Insurance from government management to private sector investment under strict guidelines, the conservative base matched the left in cries against the move as too risky despite the glaring facts proving the present system is due to bankrupt and collapse within our present retirement community's lifetime.

See if you can find a tax payer subsidized college with a U.S. history program emulating this kind of pride in our heritage from 1924. Find one which is even willing to mention our form of government is the longest lasting in all of history.

A native of Ohio and a graduate of Ohio State, ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER was appointed to his professorship at Harvard in 1924. As a teacher and author he is internationally respected for his knowledge of American history, and in the paper that follows he reminds us that over the years this nation has made its weight felt more by ideas than by wealth.

The United States is often considered a young nation, but in fact it is next to the oldest continuous government in the world. The reason is that the spirit of its people has always been empirical and pragmatic, dedicated to equalitarian ends but willing to realize them by flexible means. In the European sense of the term, America's major political parties are not parties at all, because they do not divide over basic ideologies. Neither wishes to overturn or replace the existing political and economic order; they merely desire to alter it at slower or faster rates of speed.

One of our proudest achievements has been the creation of a system of controlled capitalism that yields the highest living standards on earth and has made possible a society as nearly classless as man has ever known. The profit system as it has developed in America is a multiprofit system, sharing its benefits with all segments of society: capital, labor, and the consuming masses. Yet even this was not due to a preconceived blueprint; it too was the result of trial and error. Unprincipled businessmen had first to be brought to heel by government restraints and the growing power of organized labor before they came to learn that they must serve the general good in pursuing their selfish interests. Now labor is feeling the restraint.

The Power of Critical Theory

The after affects of a culture losing it's foundation of morals (through the communist ideal in the institutions of higher learning mocking and shaming students who profess any faith) is accepting the idea that the ends justify the means. Any unjust action can be justified as long as their 'intention' is to improve the general welfare of that society. (The very same ideal which produced the killing fields of Polpot, the Gulags, the Holocaust, and every Socialist violent revolution in the last century all over the world.) Providers of the news and information services have, on a personal level opted to use their positions to advocate agendas against their own stated industrial set of ideals. In effect, they create and repeat a national narrative, a cloaked criticism (by highlighting the worst of virtue encouraging individuals, organizations, and events while highlighting the best of their opposites) of Christianity, U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, and of the spread of Western values in Eastern cultures. In this way they are shifting the Overton Window so the general populace accepts the new 'normal' perspective.

What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left.

This dramatic movement from a culture of independence and self preservation to foolish, self destructive dependence does not happen in a free and open society without a massive, all encompassing propaganda program. Once planted in the fertile soil of inexperienced youth, the communist agenda took root and in short order no longer needed the instigators and funding of the collapsed foreign influence. The indoctrinated began authoring their own propaganda and strategizing their local interests. This group continues the original intent to 'grind America's values down' and function as a fifth column using our values of individual liberty and virtue to turn us into the self hating fools you now observe on the evening news agitating for selfish concerns. Those guys are only the visible agitation to manufacture and get their issues noticed. The next level is the news agencies who pick up the narrative and project it into the national discussion. Another group use our laws and courts to force the issue into the decision process. Finally, still another group uses Political Action Committees to elect and lobby individual and party politicians.

That, my friends, is why the (political center) Libertarian advocacy against promoting morality in education and culture is untenable. Our founders knew the nation could not survive without morals and they stated the best and almost only source of cultural morality is the Christian church in our culture. Those same founders ensured rights and freedoms to all religions based on their experiences with the Crown of England, but you have to face some realities. Not all religions are peace and order loving or even life loving. Without morality liberty cannot exist. In a national and generational sense, one cannot exist without the other. The closer the values, not necessarily the religion, the more cohesive and stronger the national identity. Very few cultures value true liberty. Most value and respect authoritarianism manifested in various degrees of socialist nations. When the people tire of the abuses that go along with such systems, they revolt and prop up a new authoritarian. This style of governance has no demonstration of lasting more than five generations under one form of government regulated by one Constitution and identified by one name. Either they die with their charismatic or strong leader or they replace him through violence.

02/17/2012

Introducing the Narrator.Part INoah Webster's original dictionary definesNarrator: n. One that narrates; One that relates a series of events or transactions.Narrative: a.

1. Relating the particulars of an event or transaction; giving a particular or continued account.2. Apt or inclined to relate stories, or to tell particulars of events; story-telling.But wise through time and narrative with age.

Mr Webster had a different understanding of story telling than is recognized today. He presented a narrative as a factual telling of events while today the definition includes incorporation of the teller's perspective a.k.a. prejudiceMcMillan ThesaurusA story or an account of something that has happened.The RED SCAREIn the late 1800's, the communist experiment began to gain notoriety in nations around the world, mostly through revolutionary dissidents. Marx' book had been studied in think tanks and institutions of higher education of the day and was seriously debated. Having no track record to evaluate, it was considered a viable alternative to the nobility class rule and capitalist societies imitating the success of the United States. The U.S. was itself an experiment in new forms of governance and enjoyed a rapid growth in popularity among commoners due to it's liberty guarantees and to the ruling class due to it's economic, military, technological and political success in it's first 120 years. Even so, as all governments do, it has it's warts and abuses and being a free society with plenty of internal criticism, the faults were on prominent display for the whole world to see. These faults stood out in a time criticism wasn't allowed in most countries still under kings and emperors and had never been a part of their traditions of governance. This was the environment which bred the rise of communism and fascism in the early 20th century everywhere but would find fertile ground in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China along with many less consequential countries. Note: There is little difference between nationalists and Marxists as both always wind up under totalitarian rule. Communists dispute this as an ideology but the requirement for a popular or charismatic leader and the oligarchic regimes they wind up under demonstrate their uniform nature. The only difference being whether the winners of the prize of rule were the instigators or their opponents, generally an agent from the overthrown government's military or national police force.These Marxists appeared to be agitators and instigators of violence with stated goals of overthrowing their own rulers and governments. The rulers were literally observing the effects of communism on foreign soils as well as hear the dissident elements in their own people. Obviously, this worried the powers that were and should worry the powers that are.The Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 and Lenin's crew of 6 worked diligently to fill the power vacuum with centralized power and centralized management down to individual thought. Ironically, Lenin absorbed many of his methods and ideals by translating The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism from American class warfare in labor struggles. As a fledgling government, Russia called for international communists to volunteer in the Spanish Civil war to defeat the internationally sponsored Nationalists. Spain's civil struggle served as a proving ground for Germany and Italy on the fascist side and Russia along with many communist societies from 53 free states in Europe and the Americas on the other side. Russia rewarded some 2800 survivors of the George Washington Brigade and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade with funds and materials they could use in their own country (U.S.) as dissidents once their service was completed in Spain. This occurred between the two world wars 1936-1940. While the allies worked alongside Russia against Germany in the second world war, the commie hunt in the U.S. was laid aside. At the end of WWII, the cold war began and the commie hunt was on again bigger than before.From the earliest days of the cold war with the U.S.S.R. the K.G.B. (their spy agency) were planting dissidents in our midst at key points to influence our culture and advance communist ideals in our society. They weren't the first communist influence on U.S. soil but they were the more strategic effort. These plants managed to initiate and inflate the present communist counter culture in our entertainment and education industries as well as labor and crime syndicates.Everyone with any knowledge of American history knows some part of the story of Senator Joe McCarthy who charged a list of State Dept. public servants with anti-American activities. These people were brought before Congress and interrogated on live TV with very little evidence being substantiated. McCarthy earned scorn for his efforts because he used intimidation and rumor to ruin innocent peoples' careers and finally failed when his attention turned toward members of the U.S. military. Three years before McCarthy gave his infamous 6 hour speech on the Senate floor, the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) investigated and called for 324 film industry professionals to be banned from film production based on their affiliation and/or activities with Communists. Similarly, at least five universities dismissed an unnumbered cast of university professors based on their refusal to testify before Congress' HUAC prior to McCarthy's stint. By 1952, 47 states introduced and passed anti-subversion legislation which still stand. Ultimately unsuccessful, these attempts to cleanse the culture of communist inculcation essentially died through McCarthy's infamy bringing down a justified pillory of the Republican party.From the AAUP's own website I found this revelation. The sequence of events marking the turn around allowing university professors unaccountable free reign to subvert American culture in our tax money subsidized lecture theaters were a series of Supreme Court decisions reversing prior Supreme Court decisions."In a series of important decisions, the Supreme Court reversed itself on several anti-Communist decisions to reaffirm First Amendment principles, and the AAUP issued vocal “Friend of the Court” statements to help the Justices make the right decision. The first of these was Sweezy vs. New Hampshire in 1957, where it was decided that University of New Hampshire lecturer was well within his rights of academic freedom to refuse to answer state attorneys questions regarding the content of his lectures. In 1964, another important case, Baggitt vs. Bullitt, declaring loyalty oaths unconstitutional, involved the University of Washington, once more at the forefront of a national trend, this time in the right direction. The final significant reversal of Red Scare policies on the part of the Supreme Court came in 1967 in Keyishian v. Board of Regents which essentially declared it unconstitutional to prevent the hiring of university faculty as consequence of their political views."This makes me wonder who placed these Justices on the court. Shock and surprise, 6 of the first 9 to contribute to these decisions were placed by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is the only president to serve 3 terms in office, (sparking bipartisan Congressional legislation intervention to limit the number of terms a president may serve) The Supreme Court was captal L Liberal dominated beginning with Roosevelt's court packing 6 Justice placements (sparking bipartisan intervention Congressional legislation.) then followed by Harry S. Truman Democrat who placed another 3 followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who placed 4 then John F. Kennedy Democrat placed 2 then Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat who placed 2. One Republican in the lot placed only 4 justices throughout this series of decisions. FDR would have assumed a kingly role had the Congress not blocked him on two major fronts including limited terms and court packing. He was the very definition of the leader the founding fathers feared would assume the office and the prime example of what they attempted to preempt by separating the powers of government. FDR fought tooth and nail to overcome these designed limitations attempting to centralize power in a national fascist fashion.While I am the first to recognize the importance of keeping an environment safe for the arena of ideas, especially for a discussion of best policy options, this important principle is currently being employed as the defense for anti-American brainwashing techniques (not hyperbole, actual COMMUNIST propaganda from self professed Communists and now includes their marriage to Islamic propagandists) for which the government and the private citizen pays vast sums of wealth. The college campus is uniquely servile to their methods because the students are committed to being there financially as well as having the family authoritarian pressing them to do well with their very special opportunity, essentially making them a captive audience. Similarly, Public Broadcasting is engaged in the same operation obviously scaled back because their audience is not captive and their ratings demonstrate their success and failure. (until last March, also on the taxpayers' dime)Back on topic.

Fifty years from graduation, their generation infiltrated every part of our culture including all careers requiring a higher education level. However, the evidence is nowhere more apparent than the Marx controlled news and information industry. These are big business corporations and their service is run as a business. In other words they choose their stories and present them in a way that attracts the consumer. So they are more a form of entertainment industry than an information provider. Ergo the newsy phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads." The editors, anchors and producers cannot present every news worthy current event, thus they are required to pick and choose among the offerings presented by their reporters. As a corporation, they focus on the melodramatic entries to attract the consumer which rewards the reporter who focuses on and presents the melodrama. Corporations have always been held in low esteem since the inculcation of propaganda in corporate strategy. In other words, they lead our opinions to convince us we cannot be happy or even survive without their product or service just to increase their profit margins.

This is different than the abdication of personal virtue and morality. News and information corporations depend on the product of the communist ideologue infiltrated institutions of higher learning for their new staff. The industry must hire professionally trained people to present the current events to the consumer in a precise and clear way the consumer can quickly grasp and understand and digest. The indoctrinated college graduates become indoctrinating news industry staffers. Similarly, law offices need researchers and other staffers to write and review legal documents which meet the exacting standards of the legal industry. Again, the current educators are required to have teaching degrees before they can be hired on to a school. Hollywood is a different animal but the dissidents have also been planted in this industry and they also have many graduates from the indoctrinating colleges sufficient that these two industries reflect one another's beliefs and values. Between these four industries, an impressive number of dissidents have been placed in control of all our information services as well as a major political party and many higher courts including the Supreme Court.

Therefor, you must evaluate what is the most successful form of government and which form you prefer to live under. If you have any awareness of actual history rather than what you've been indoctrinated with you will value the original American form. If you then care to preserve or reform it then investigate the historical record for yourself, and do it well enough that you can defend it's principles anywhere and at anytime. You must know 1. what is the root of American culture 2. what is the majority of American culture 3. how has that majority's rule treated other religions 4. what are America's real faults, 5. what are her virtues and accomplishments 6. the values of other religions differ from the majority's (in some cases diametrically opposed) and you are going to lose even the possibility to maintain peace and liberty without setting some guidelines for which values are profitable for our culture. Know how to articulate this information and how to describe your reasoning for the new requirements and standards for Americans.I am not suggesting we attempt to eliminate other faiths. What I am suggesting is national and legal venues to encourage our own religion as well as the religions who's values are nearest our own and discourage those with values opposed to the American ideal of peace, respect for life, and freedom. The absolute necessity of preserving the only bastion of liberty in the world based on rights (not assigned or given by man and therefor not adjustable or susceptible to opinion) requires every man and woman to proactively promote the injection of moral discipline everywhere in our culture. Every other constitutional government is based on rights assigned or decided by man and are subject to the maleable opinions of generations. With regard to the theo-political phenomenon of Islam, the onus is on them. If they cannot self correct, if they are unwilling to correct the radical elements within their own ranks, then deportation, incarceration, and execution for violent crime in the name of their faith is in order. By the way, this is the exact same treatment we have exercised with Christians' offenses.

01/23/2012

A while back, Glenn Beck authored a book called, "Arguing with Idiots." In it, he quotes the arguments (talking points) of the extreme left, right, and other ideologues and then responds to them with what he considered reason and logic. Focusing as much on the 'funny' as the truth as he understands it, he employed a great deal of condescension for the 'idiots.' It could be argued the 'idiots' provide the fodder for their own character assassination. I don't think Glennis proficient at or even concerned about arguing with 'idiots' in a way that comes off as (agapeo) loving as described in my "Other Centered" article, 'making knowledge acceptable' but his intention IS for the betterment of society and of the 'idiot's' own welfare. However, he has hit on the one correct tactical response to a fool's argument. With all the authority of an adult caretaker of an undisciplined child, insist on right, good, reason, truth speaking and accountability.

For my part, the Christian is cautioned not to use the term 'fool' in condemnation of a person. Matthew 5:22 "Rhacca" or 'worthless' could be translated into 'dangerous' and 'deadly.' That being the case, charges of 'fool' interpreted as dangerous to our culture could literally wind up with death penalties for ignorance and honest mistakes and anyway, God never intended we clean the culture by death penalty for ordinary folly. Everyone is foolish. It must be so, because all sin is foolish self destruction and yet, everybody sins. Literally, every person on earth is deserving of the death penalty in that case and what did He hang on the cross for? Therefore, Christ told us we would be in danger of hellfire for character assassination.

In the circumstance of arguing with a fool, if one is not able to be authoritative, he appears as foolish as the fool. However, if he is able to be authoritative, whatever remains of the fool's good reputation is destroyed by his own mouth in comparison to the authority of truth.

Our Lord did not condemn the assessment of a person’s character, but the assassination of one’s character. We're supposed to assess who is and is not a fool for several reasons, but again with the caution not to go around charging fools and condemning them, justly or not. The first reason we must assess the recipient's condition is for self preservation. Fools are dangerous critters. They hate and lie and slander and worse, frequently with no more incentive than an inherent blood lust. The second reason is to measure our answer according to their ability to receive it. The more immature and undisciplined the mind, the more care required in presenting the truth to make it acceptable or palatable. It's literally like gaining the trust and respect of a child and leading them to reason out truth for themselves. "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him" Proverbs (22:15). The opening of a closed mind is usually a matter of respect and eventually, trust. Some of the reasons a mind is closed is based on prejudice or judging in advance of investigation. Some prejudice is based on real experience of abusive authority. Still other prejudice is unwarranted, self serving wickedness. The third reason we must assess the recipient's spiritual condition is to further meet them in the area of their need. A drug addict needs assistance in kicking his habit while an Anarchist ideologue needs a swift kick in the pants. No? Okay, maybe its life coaching, but the kick would make ME feel better. (that wasn't other centered was it?)

Thus it is that I cautiously step up onto the soapbox to laud arguments with fools to expose their folly. My own abilities to articulate the truth to fools is far from where it should be at my age or even at my spiritual age. (the point at which I began to accept and employ the precepts the Bible promotes until now.) As noted again, in my "Other Centered" article, God provides the ability at the right time and any attempt outside of that supernatural embodiment of His power to love in Agape', is nothing if not getting in the way of His agenda. At the same time, I am to be prepared to give every man an answer for the hope that is within me. In that endeavor, I try to be keep up with current events and historical knowledge as well as studying the Bible under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of objective truth, lets examine what behaviors exemplify folly. It isn't what we've been led to think of as folly by Hollywood movies and slapstick humorists. That's simply a projection of imaginary well intentioned oafs. The traits of the foolish are listed in the 26th Chapter of Proverbs and they ain't well intentioned or oafish in most cases. In fact, many fools can argue a blue streak and with the current state of the state-run schools promoting anti-wisdom mantras like, "Don't judge people" and "Truth is subjective" fools are purposefully filled with pride and feel justified in loudly and obnoxiously projecting their foolish opinions on the rest of the culture. In my mind, that means we Christians have a huge task ahead of us to combat the misinformation in the form of self deluded popular opinion presented every bit as authoritative as revealed objective truth. If we're not too far behind the curve of mass delusion, perhaps we can pull our culture back from the brink of self destruction. On that score, I agree whole-heartedly with Glenn Beck. I also agree with Ayn Rand on at least one point. Truth must be preached over and over again, constantly for the express purpose of defeating harmful ideas. eg. 'social justice' Truth must be intellectually defended from the ravages of self delusion and evil manipulators. Now lets dig in to the meat of revealed truth.

Similitudes, Instructions1Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest,

So honor is not fitting for a fool.

No one is prepared for a cold day in the summer, neither is anyone prepared to honor fools. Rain on a crop ripe for harvest delays the harvest at best and ruins it entirely at worst (with mildew or stripping winds and hail) So is the building up of a fool's pride harmful to the community.

2Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, So a curse without cause does not alight.

Blessing and cursing require the employment of faith. Curses require the addition of the believer's righteousness and evil deeds or unrighteousness on the part of the recipient. Contrarily, the enemy curses the righteous and the unrighteous, the former any way he can and the latter with deceitful promises in an effort to get them to do his bidding.

3A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.

To make any beneficial use of the animals, often they must be given an incentive to do as instructed. Similarly, with fools an authority figure must find and provide immediate incentives to the fool to behave as necessary to benefit the community or even themselves.

4Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

Emotional responses or arguments without forethought bring your character and reputation down to the level of the fool. You wind up impressing no one and improving nothing. Your behavior is indistinguishable from the fool's.

5Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

There is nothing so destructive to a society as the pride of a fool. He goes about spreading his fool's agenda until challenged by an authoritative speaker of the truth whereupon his foolishness is exposed and his agenda scrapped.

6He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

The author didn't have a word like 'handicaps' so he described a literal handicap (self inflicted) and compares this self destruction and public danger by his willingness to place responsibility and trust in the hands of a fool.

7Like the legs which are useless to the lame, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

A fool is incapable of discerning wisdom and truth. He will misinterpret the proverb and thus the proverb being misapplied is comparable to dead weight as opposed to useful appendages.

8Like one who binds a stone in a sling, So is he who gives honor to a fool.

A stone swung in a sling that does not release it's load will continue it's round until it collides with the wielder. In other words, "you'll knock your eye out, kid!" No society can afford the presence of a proud fool. Honoring him will increase his pride and empower him to spread his folly into others.

9Like a thorn which falls into the hand of a drunkard, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

A drunk is more susceptible to auto responses and one such natural reaction to something touching the skin of the hand is to automatically close the hand on the object that strikes it. Closing the hand on a thorn is going to force that thorn to pierce the skin. That's what a proverb does to the fool's character and reputation through his repeating it out of proper context.

10Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by.

This proverb reminds me of the old cartoon with Injun Joe in which one of his compatriots would always be behind another Indian during battles. When he let fly his arrow it always conked his friend in the back of the head. The employer is charged with choosing industrious and virtuous people to hire. Without foreknowledge of their character, he is taking a great chance in hiring a foolish character. The foolish character is dangerous to be near, especially in a work environment where people are focusing their attentions on their own duties instead of the dangers created by the fool.

11Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.

Yes, dogs actually do eat their vomit and yes, fools actually do repeat the same mistakes over and over again as if without memory or reason.

12Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Troubling information that fools are not the worst society has to offer. Worse is a man unable or unwilling to seek or even accept correction in his behavior and purpose.

13The sluggard says, “There is a lion in the road! A lion is in the open square!”

Note the terms switch from fool to sluggard but the theme continues. He will lie to make excuses for not doing what he knows he should be doing.

He quite literally groans as he rolls over just like a door on squeaky hinges.

15The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; He is weary of bringing it to his mouth again.

It's a pretty extreme case when a person cannot be bothered to feed himself. These few sluggard proverbs are meant to exaggerate the case so the sluggard can laugh at his own ways and therefore accept correction.

16The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes Than seven men who can give a discreet answer.

Again, but this time not for humor but for force to point out his unwillingness to be corrected. The seven men wise enough to provide discretion are able to measure their answers to make knowledge acceptable to the recipient.

17Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.

You have to be blind to the consequences, self destructive, looking for a fight, or supernaturally tasked and empowered to insert yourself into another's self destruction.

Ever heard the phrase, "Looking for trouble?" This seeker will find his goal in short order. A prime example comes to mind that has lately made the news. "Suicide by cop." A perpetrator of crimes is relentless and unswerving in his attempt to challenge the police with deadly force until they're forced to act in preservation of innocent life, their own or bystanders.

19So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, “Was I not joking?”

A poor disguise or a thinly veiled ill intention. This phrase is so prevalent in present day culture it needs no further interpretation. "It was a joke! Don't get mad!"

20For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.

Contention is not the normal state of relationships. It requires the fuel of an evil spirit to keep stirring up relational problems.

21Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.

Compares the fuel and the fire to evil spirits and unwitting people. The wicked want to destroy relationships.

22The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.

Tempting is the drama of contention to boredom and the strife of contention easily finds the core of our relationships.

23Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross Are burning lips and a wicked heart.

Once one becomes attracted to drama, they are unworthy to keep company with, for seeking harm to the community.

24He who hates disguises it with his lips, But he lays up deceit in his heart.

The malcontent knows their character is unattractive so they attempt to hide it while simultaneously planning and acting out wickedness.

25When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, For there are seven abominations in his heart.

Once you recognize this character, just know their intention is to do harm to your relationships and murder your character and reputation.

26Though his hatred covers itself with guile, His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.

Eventually, the truth always comes out and it does so in a public way no matter how well camouflaged.

27He who digs a pit will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.

Evil people get caught in their own traps. They cannot discern their self destruction nor it's cause frequently blaming the innocent, but the discerning spirit recognizes the handiwork as being their own.

28A lying tongue hates those it crushes, And a flattering mouth works ruin.

Helps to define hatred as ill intentioned. Flattery undeserved, has an agenda and it is never set for wholly beneficial purposes. It is designed to win the favor of one who can be used to do evil by proxy.

Other verses scattered around the book of Proverbs include:

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).

The proactive Christian is tasked with pre-purposing his mind and will to be subject to one influence. That of the Holy Spirit. Prior to Jesus' ascension after having defeated death and Hades, the faithful did not have these tools. Even so, to this day we are repeatedly cautioned to guard our hearts from wicked desires and evil temptations.

Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, Rather than a fool in his folly (17:12).

If you have not prepared your heart for this fool's specific folly, you may be subject to his influence. That one encounter can be enough to send you off track for the rest of your life affecting your family and everyone you ever rub shoulders with.

Drive out the scoffer, and contention will go out, Even strife and dishonor will cease (22:10).

Echoes 26:21-28 but most specifically 26:23 and provides the more proactive "Drive out" the fool, referred to in this case as the scoffer and in verse 9:7,8 counters the scoffer with the wise.

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him (22:15).

The child is still open enough to respect and trust the loving righteous authority in their lives to be corrected. It may frequently not seem so, but the consistent loving and righteous authority figure will inculcate a deep and lasting effect.

He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you (9:7-8).

This is self preserving wisdom. It prefers the open mind to the closed mind. Jesus encouraged every believer to go to all the world with the Gospel. He forewarned His disciples that they would be hated and persecuted for His name's sake. This call to 'follow Him' specifically includes the examples He set on the cross, eg. death. The dishonor stated above is lost at the point of 'other centeredness' and 'other concern' revealed in our personal sacrifice for the sake of the lost and self destructing fools. Paul described himself as a 'fool' for Christ because the 'wisdom' of Christians is folly in the eyes of the secular world, not for lack of Christian reason or logic, but because of the fools' disregard of reason and logic.

Okay; enough. If you want more, keep going but you're going to have to look them up and contemplate them under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit yourselves. Let me just close by saying, the issue of folly and wisdom is one of the heart. You cannot really reason folly out of the fool, neither can you teach him not to be a fool, you'd be hard pressed to beat the folly out of a fool. No, in God's time, with loving kindness present the Good news of God's accomplishment on our behalf. Until the fool is prepared to receive that fundamental truth, he will reject your proof and resent your insinuation that he is at fault for anything. By the way, Christians are certainly not immune to folly, thus the warnings to avoid the fool in his folly. Its contagious. You are however, empowered by the Holy Spirit to discern truth and you should proactively use the time at hand to study the Bible for pre-confrontation preparation against the day you are stuck in an elevator for hours with a wicked fool, or faced with the folly of your teens on a cross-country drive. I'll have to share the situation God put me in to give me the incentive to study the stuff He wanted me to study in His Word... someday. Either of the above situations would have been preferable.

Desire realized is sweet to the soul, But it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil (13:19).

Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool; And so is wisdom to a man of understanding (10:23).

Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is good will (14:9).

The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of understanding (10:21)

Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, When he has no sense? (17:16).

A scoffer seeks wisdom, and finds none, But knowledge is easy to him who has understanding (14:6).

Wisdom is too high for a fool, He will not open his mouth in the gate (24:7).

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction (1:7).

The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly (15:14).

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind (18:2).

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words (23:9).

Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, But the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth (17:24).

There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, But a foolish man swallows it up (21:30).

A fool’s vexation is known at once, But a prudent man conceals dishonor (12:16).

A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back (29:11).

A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly (12:23).

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).

He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool (10:18).

The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit (14:8).

Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool (19:1).

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).

The lips of the wise spread knowledge, But the hearts of fools are not so (15:7)

Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them (1:29-32).

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, But he who regards reproof is prudent (15:5).

A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, He will not go to the wise (15:12).

A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool (17:10).

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him (27:22).

Scorners set a city aflame, But wise men turn away anger (29:8).

The devising of folly is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men (24:9).

The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (12:15).

He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered (28:26).

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil (3:5-7).

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest (29:9).

In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, But the lips of the wise will preserve them (14:3).

A fool’s lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows. A fool’s mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul (18:6-7).

Luxury is not fitting for a fool; Much less for a slave to rule over princes (19:10).

Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge (19:25)

“How long, 0 naive ones, will you love simplicity? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you (1:22-24).

“Come, eat of my food, And drink of the wine I have mixed. Forsake your folly and live, And proceed in the way of understanding” (9:5-6).

A much more thorough dissertation on the topic of fools can be found at bible.org

10/05/2011

Each Christian struggles in different ways and at different times in the same way to obey God's will. So without suggesting I am more spiritual, I am witnessing the blossoming of reason into self discipline with regard to relationships in someone very close to me. Specifically, attracting people to God by exampling His love. I am not suggesting they are abnormal or don't care or feel as much as any normal human being, only that this love, this agapeo is not natural to anyone. It is the kind of love that is learned, it is a commitment and it must be empowered supernaturally. Any part of that recipe missing means the practical application is impossible.

How many times have you read a verse in the Bible without that verse meaning much to you or rather that it speaks such an obvious truth it seems to require no meditation, then one day you read it and it suddenly opens up to your understanding in a whole new light and requires a 'selah' from Psalms or a pause and deeper introspection. I have known this experience many times but this week I had the virgin experience of watching the light go on for someone else. I knew this specific revelation the way it just opened up for her but for me it was many years ago. I have tried many times to communicate the depth of it as I knew she needed to apply it's wisdom but she simply wasn't ready to receive it. Suddenly she can see it and she wants that wisdom and habit right now. Now she's asking me to help her achieve it and suddenly that seems like a tall order when I'd formerly assumed it was my onus to inculcate others with my deep understanding of the application of agapeo in every human encounter as I'd received it from 1 Cor 13. She gets it from another verse and a layer of the veils is pulled away so she perceives the need but not enough to see how to acquire or apply it.

So, my task this week is to communicate the way to filter every word which proceeds from our mouths through the filter of love and not just love but the kind of love that makes knowledge desirable and acceptable. So 10 years ago in my pious attitude I knew it and could explain it in plain old simple English. Today, I look back over the ten years at my performance in carrying out agapeo and suddenly I don't seem to have the accumen or the command over my spirit I thought I had in this discipline. So let me proceed with the caution of a trekster approaching a frozen lake to cross it without falling through the ice.

We are so very limited in our knowledge of the needs of our fellow man, even those we've held the longest term and closest relationships with. There are things going on inside their hearts they will never feel safe sharing and our old habits of being quick to judge and speak and slow to listen haven't done anything to encourage their trust to open up. Now you must learn to make others feel at ease in sharing their hearts without condemnation. This begins with filtering our words and censoring our speech. Instead of reacting to others, we think proactively. When someone else is angered / uncouth / passionate or otherwise without caution in their speech or behavior, we must think of our purpose and goal before answering which slows response time considerably. Thus the verse, be slow to speak and quick to listen James 1:19 is more a consequence of applied agapeo than a means to express it, but it is a good practice to begin the transformation of our own habits. Answering any attack in self concern is immediately recognizable as a failure in agapeo. This love is demonstrable via 'other' concern instead of self concern. When you love someone, the first person you must protect them from is you.

This is half of all the truth the Bible teaches. Matt 22:33 When Jesus told the Pharisees the two major commandments on which the whole law and the prophets rested, He said, "Love God with all your heart all your mind and all your spirit and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself." The first half deals with the natural rebellion of man against God and the second deals with the natural self interest. One may express other concern by pointing to another's behavior is damaging your own concerns but the primary concern in you must remain centered on others even while acting in a self preserving manner. Don't be bothered by whether they recognize your concerns are centered on self or other, God knows and He is all that matters where judgment ultimately rests. The righteous goal is their benefit whether they would acknowledge it immediately or later is not your concern, but obedience to the Spirit of God is and that work of perfect obedience will eventually bear fruit.

You won't recognize the need for the supernatural embuement of power until you once again experience your fallibility with this call to be like Jesus. So, you will not have the patience to wait for God's timing and wisdom or won't recognize the prompting of the Spirit of God to act or the direction God gives in that moment. There you are setting your mind because you're committed to think through your reaction to find the most profitable (for the perfect agenda) responses when rapid fire challenges to you personally or to your faith or intelligence or whatever, you become overwhelmed and BOOM!! there you go off in your own wisdom and understanding defending yourself or the faith or God and completely blowing your opportunity to show the heart of Jesus. A few episodes like this and you realize you are just as helpless with this work as you are with every other form of perfection God calls you to. The only thing left to you is to repent and submit every care to God and ask that He place His love in your heart, the words in your mouth and the works in your hands. Rom 8:12-13 Eph 3:16,20 That's when the miracles happen. That's when your heart is at peace with your spirit whether the truth is received or not. Your heart still breaks for the unrepentant soul but you're finally good with your own performance.

In our culture, the hero is recognized for the dramatic, placing his life in the path of destruction in order to preserve another. Yes, this is a prime example of self sacrifice but the reigning in of our daily habits and reactions to promote Another's agenda, the perfect agenda, this is no less a personal sacrifice and much more difficult to accomplish than a single decision and quick action. Yet this sacrifice is often unrecognized and unrewarded or even mocked and derided until we are met at the Pearly Gates. When it is recognized, you gain authority of the kind that comes without station. In other words, people just honor your opinions because they value you, because you frequently demonstrate other concern priority over self concern.

09/14/2011

Some time ago I wrote a piece to challenge a blog neighbor's unjustified reliance on expert opinion and centralized social engineering. Today I want to revisit the term that titled that post. If the people are unwilling or unable to learn history and keep up on current events then the culture is doomed to repeat history's mistakes. Thomas Sowell coined the term 'Consequential Knowledge' and defines it; knowledge by virtue of it's presence or absence has serious consequences.

In very recent times and in our own culture we have dramatic evidence of the failures of centralized planning and the charismatic strong man who enforces fairness on everyone else. This is a reprint of an article I found floating around online. There were no sources given except those in the body of the text and I suspect it floated around a lot of email boxes before it landed on the blogs and message boards. I will finish my thoughts after the letter.

(Frosty Wooldridge (born 1947) is a US journalist, writer, environmentalist, traveler)

DETROIT

By Frosty Wooldridge

For 15 years, from the mid 1970's to 1990, I worked in Detroit , Michigan . I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses and school yards. Trash everywhere!

Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it, and ignored it. Tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing, and food stamps!

With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10, and in one case, one woman birthed 24 children as reported by the Detroit Free Press, all on American taxpayer dollars.

A new child meant a new car payment, new TV, and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson's 'Great Society' flourish in Detroit . If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.

Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America , outside of Richard Daley in Chicago , rode Detroit down to its knees... He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence, and arrogance. As a black man, he said, "I am the MFIC." The IC meant "in charge".

You can figure out the rest Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.

As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state.

Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city for the free government hand outs, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan , but most work in Detroit . As the whites moved out, the Muslims moved in.

As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. Detroit suffers so much shoplifting that grocery stores no longer operate in many inner city locations. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife! Detroit may be one of our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike, and total separation from America ..

Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan , paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June, according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America .. English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing.

Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city. In Time Magazine's October 4, 2009, "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell, and how it can rise again," I choked on the writer's description of what happened. "If Detroit had been ravaged by a hurricane, and submerged by a ravenous flood, we'd know a lot more about it," said Daniel Okrent. "If drought and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we'd see it on the evening news every night." Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it, if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice.

But Detroit , once our fourth largest city, now 11th and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country.

Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision making."

As Coleman Young's corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kickbacks and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city's death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit .

"By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit 's treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services," Okrent said. "The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers' union to reject a philanthropist's offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans , unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit today, the unemployment rate is 28.9%. That's worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent.

At the end of Okrent's report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, "That's because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city's collapse, it's also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century.

If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about America’s future?"

As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner's book,"$20 Per Gallon", the auto industry won't come back. Immigration will keep pouring more and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit , thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America . If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit . Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.

You have already seen it in Madrid , Spain , London , England , and Paris , France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights, and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying. Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country and way of life.

I PRAY EVERYONE THAT READS THIS REALIZES THAT IF WE DON'T STAND UP, AND SCREAM AT WASHINGTON , AND OUR STATE, CITY AND LOCAL LEADERS THIS IS WHAT AWAITS THE REST OF AMERICA . IF YOU THINK MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS AND OTHER FORIEGNERS WILL EVENTUALLY FIT RIGHT IN, THEN YOU ARE AS BIG A PART OF THE PROBLEM AS THEY ARE.

IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST A BUNCH OF HOOEY AND YOU FEEL NO DUTY TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEN I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO STAND AND FIGHT ?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

IF YOU LOVE AMERICA , PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG…..

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

It is incumbent upon each generation to pass on the consequential knowledge they have inherited and picked up along life's journey. It is incumbent upon each generation to seek out the best information available on current events and to require our progeny study history to compare our cultural well being. It is incumbent upon each generaton to inculcate the work ethic, ettiquette, and other values they have learned and inherited from their forebears. Everything Liberalism demands or envisions of/for our culture is anathema to that purpose. The letter above is anecdotal evidence toward that fact. The city and state are not anecdotal and neither are the other Liberal strongholds where the records of long held, long policied, long consequence reveal hampered cultural and economic well-being if not outright civic disaster. I invite you to compare Conservative strongholds and their records on cultural and economic health. Please get this consequential information into as many young minds and hearts as you possibly can.

08/24/2011

discriminationDISCRIMINATION, n.1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.2. The state of being distinguished.3. Mark of distinction.

Since 1999, I've been studying ever deeper, the radical influence our culture suffers at the hands of Liberals. It started with my conversion to a main stream religion whereupon I noticed the news media were biased against my faith. Then I noticed their apparent hatred of the U.S. military. I remembered serving in the Air Force under Ronald Reagan and the dramatic shift of priorities as Bill Clinton took office. About this time we were attacked again by radical extremist Muslims and this time they managed to topple the World Trade Center. The press' and the hard left political spectrum's behavior after that event caused me to start blogging on current events and as I blogged I began to investigate in earnest our national history, Christian history, and current events became incredibly important to me because I could find online what the media was either distorting or missing entirely. Something in our culture was terribly wrong and I was searching for the root of the wrongness. I thought I'd captured the concept several times, but the evidence wasn't entirely fitting the circumstances I was witnessing. I also began to notice the same wrong in world news media. How can the U.N. condemn Israel 11 times and all the rest of the world's nations combined not once, and place Sudan on the U.N. Human Rights Council? How is this not reported in a way that highlights the wrong in the U.N? The more I dug the more I realized "I've been lied to my entire life. Literally everything I thought I knew about political history was 180º out. At the Left's reaction to the required American response to the WTC attacks, I began to see how history was recorded that way.

Several years ago I heard a speech via YouTube held at the Heritage Foundation. At the time I'd never heard the name of the speaker but what caught my eye was the title of his speech, "How Modern Liberals Think." I used to be a Democrat and switched parties when I realized the Democrats held a bias against my mainstream religion, so my interest was piqued by that title. I clicked on over and spent the next hour astounded at the clear thinking and articulation of truth I had known but could not explain of current influences in policy making and is inculcated into every venue of information in our culture. The man didn't pull punches and he wasn't trying to appeasingly reach out to the other side because the other side simply are not reasoning and there is no point in reaching out to the unreasonable. I connected with this man on FaceBook and messaged him, "Sir, you are awesome. I've been blogging for years and you've said in an hour what I've been trying to say for all those years." Since then I've studied his speech closer and have deduced his entire thesis is summed up in one line. "Liberals' moral imperitive is indiscriminateness because the opposite of discrimination is the suspension of all facts, evidence, reason, truth, morality, decency, and judgment." They invariably side with evil over good to ensure there is no comparison or judgment which (in their mind) leads to bigotry. His name is Evan Sayet and he's worked in every medium, print, radio, movies, comedy, news, etc, and though conservative, his talents made room for him on the David Letterman show and the Bill Maher show and plenty of others. He admits to being heavily influenced by Professor Allan Bloom with his book "The Closing of the American Mind." If you've read my 'Credible Experts' article, you'll recognize his 'aha' moment in the speech.

Liberals equate evil deeds, groups, nations, and individuals with great deeds, groups, nations, and individuals because to judge one is better than another is a form of bigotry and discrimination. In the liberal mind, nobody is (and cannot be) any better than anybody, but they will say the better is worse than the worst to bring about the vision they believe. The Liberal must be a virulent antagonist to everything right, true, good, and beautiful. Evan's speech is so successful because it is hard to believe so many including seemingly moral, intelligent people can think this way and thus our mind has trouble putting together the conclusion Evan Sayet drew for us. Yet, with the dots connected the truth of it is irrefutable to the reasonable mind. It isn't so much Liberals' cognitive processes as it is an auto-response to literal brainwashing indoctrination, to their emotions to pronounced judgments from the religious community, or the scary realities of international politics. The indoctrination is summed up in a song by John Lennon (Imagine) or another by SuperTramp (Goodbye Stranger) and a book by Robert Fulghum (All I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten). It is a Utopian vision and rejects everything people have fought, killed or died for in favor of unbelief, commitmentless, boundaryless, judgmentless lifestyles and behavior. For the Liberal this is how we stop wars and crime.

You see the evidence of it carried out by our Liberal main stream news media with promotional cover stories like The New York Times carrying the American abuses of terrorists 32 straight days when nobody was killed or hurt. The same goes with the Newsweek report of a non-story in which American troops guarding prisoners were accused of flushing a Koran down the toilet. Not only is this not a story and never happened, it is an impossible story. Ever tried to flush a book down a toilet? What they did was try to prove to the world and especially to the U.S. public "if you thought America was great, here's the evidence to show you America is not great but just as bad as their enemies."

This is the unreasoning mind which is now in control of all our venues of information. We must take back the schools, the universities, the media, and the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry indoctrinates starting with Sesame Street going all the way through Queer Eye and beyond to Desperate Housewives and Married With Children. Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are rewarded for their extremist views and horrendous reports on America's contribution to freedom and liberty around the world, while conservative professors can make tenure, but are simply not preferred in our state sponsored universities. Hollywood has done a tremendous job of convincing the world America lives a violent, criminal, hedonist lifestyle and her military is populated by uneducated ear collectors and sadists.

We must begin to enroll in the industries now controlled by this unreasoning prolitareate. We must begin to offer the public real quality alternatives to each of the industries these brainwashing information service operations. It has begun with some cable news and print media but that is barely scratching the surface. The school vouchers may have been an alternative to the state run schools program but that legislation failed and the reality of our culture eliminates the homeschool as a viable option for most parents. Either charter schools need to be made free or we need the political muscle to scratch the state run school model. Whatever it takes to get these monopolized industries out of the hands of Liberalism. We must retake the information venues. That solves two problems. Defeating the errors of reasonless Liberalism and provides the opportunity to inculcate our cultural values.

08/13/2011

In our society, the tendency to approach intellectual conflict with prejudices and with strategic attack and defense mechanisms makes open dialogue dishonest at worst and closed minded at best while providing the incentive and venue for the destruction of moral ideals. It is a real struggle to put these 'tools' aside to find the kernels of truth in the oppositions' arguments. If you manage to do this, you are a rare commodity. What is required is a deep and thorough research into the topic and wading through all the discourse which has already occurred. Assuming your opposition is ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced, and hate filled whether they are or not, closes your opportunities to discern and glean the merits of their arguments. If there is ever to be any progress in understanding and agreement, it begins with an open mind and most importantly, a love for the truth.

Contempt prior to investigation is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.. William Paley 1794

The higher goal must be to acknowledge facts and truth. This is a difficult point for our youth today due entirely to the fact that so many of our schools are promulgating another anti-wisdom mantra. This one is known as subjective truth. "What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me and what's true for me isn't necessarily true for you." In point of fact, there is only and can only be one truth. "Healthy grass is green" is not subjective. Either its a true statement or its a false one. Opinions are not truth. Opinions are built on false conclusions and limited knowledge more easily than truth can be discerned from the observable facts. However, that mantra encourages the holders of opinions built on preference rather than fact to feel as obligated to express their biased by preference opinions as readily as those who've actually dug through the evidence and thoroughly investigated the truth to gain authority on the topic. In the interest of wisdom and good judgment, we must put aside our preferences and allow our bias to be subjected to criticism on the merits of the evidence.

Finally, we have to acknowledge that no one person can grasp all the facts in macro-complexity, but the best minds establish which facts give the greatest indicators of trends we may observe on a consistent basis. This is where studies performed by professionals and scientist achieve their value. Researchers dig up the best available information while scientist do the work of testing and observation to refute or confirm our assumptions. On the micro scale of interpersonal relationships, we observe the behaviors of those we have relationships with and how they react to our behavior. We lean on traditions and laws to establish which behaviors are acceptable versus repugnant. These traditions and laws are malleable to some extent, but if we are applying micro sensibilities to macro issues, we begin to see a breakdown of traditions and laws that have proven their worth to the society as a whole. Similarly, if we apply the macro sensibilities to our micro relationships, we act in bigoted and damaging ways to those who are nearest to us. One wrecks society the other wrecks individuals. Neither is acceptable. We have to begin to train our young people in the difference between macro benefiting decisions with and micro benefiting decisions in our interpersonal relationships.

In this endeavor, I welcome the examining and challenging of my positions so we can ascertain what is right, good and true. Be forewarned however, I will simultaneously be evaluating your grasp of the truth. Due to the aforementioned tactics, each of us must guard against the immoral influence of personal preference held by our opposition as readily as we guard against our own preferences and temptations to influence others with strategic tactics when our preferential and comfortable positions are untenable. These tactical methods of argument are as natural to us as breathing. We are raised by people and people have been arguing since the beginning of time. So, our parents and our siblings and our neighbors are all teaching us how to 'win' an argument from the time we begin to speak. What they aren't able to do, even if they utilize proper methods of argument is to teach us the advanced disciplined methods of keeping an open mind while simultaneously guarding against the influential strategic tactics of argumentation. This takes discipline, this takes commitment, this takes a love of truth and places it above the justification of our preferences..

welfare debate

In this video we see an old discussion on the real effects of social welfare programs. I chose this one for the stark representation of style and content of the discussion not because of political views. Well, in complete disclosure it is in part due to my views as I have placed this video in my online library. But that's completely beside the point. First, we note that everybody is spouting percentages and study results, but one is presenting a defensive position not based on effect, but based on desire or motivation, the other is presenting the results of the programs and advocating either totally abolishing the programs or as I would suggest, putting them into local authority and governance. The more local the better due to the immediate accountability of the receiving parties to the giving parties. Again, that is beside the point. The point of this article is to demonstrate rejection of criticism or closed mindedness. From the outside (that is from a perspective of not having any knowledge of the issue) it appears to be like any ordinary hot debate. Nobody is winning, everybody is disagreeing and Washington remains in permanent deadlock. However, if we dig in to the conversation and pull apart the defense and attack mechanisms and just look at the approaches each party has taken to the problem, one identifies the errors in applied intelligence to make a bad problem much bigger and worse.

Now, this brings me to the conclusion I am trying to communicate. Drawing from the video a demonstration of bias and commitment to the cause rather than the solution and love of truth prevents real progress.

Ayn Rand; Author of the popular book Atlas Shrugged, wrote a chapter on the requirement for every individual to employ their judgment. Further, she identifies the moral responsibility to extol and inculcate moral standards on society to each and every individual through pronouncing their judgments. I don't idolize Rand as many other Libertarians are prone to do but because they do, and because I criticize Libertarians for their absolute abandonment of moral behavioral requirements (aside from not directly interfering with one another), I thought I should highlight her position on socially moral standards and the need for projection on society of those standards. I do consider her works to be an important contribution to the discussion on forms of government as a testimonial but her perception is biased by a life spent under a government rife with centralized power's greatest abuses.

One of her hardest positions is on the issue of reason and much of society's tendency to evade their responsibility to reason out their decisions, actions and behavior, yet she routinely evades reconsideration of the God question since she was twelve. When challenged with her use of the term God bless you, she claims to value the expression as a sentiment but not as an actual communication with a higher being. Yet she is clear on the personal responsibility each of us must accept and act upon to preserve our culture and society in a functioning, healthy, (self empowered) existence. This society, and to my personal shame, even the sub-culture self identified as the standard bearers have failed their God-given role of defenders of reason, and not just reason but the fruit of reason which is the justification of faith, to articulate morality's benefits, to make knowledge acceptable, to make righteous living desirable, and to make God obvious as the Author of it all.

This chapter is well worth the read.

Moral Judgment

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism. The idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares in effect that neither the good nor the evil can expect anything from you, whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess and unimpeachable character. One need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of airs of knowledge. One needs an unbreeched integrity, that is the absence of any indulgence in conscious willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err the when evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment on the facts and reality, so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind where the responsibility is more awesome than in the public tribunal because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

There is, however a court of appeals from one's judgments - objective reality. A judge puts himself on trial every time he pronounces a verdict. It is only in today's reign of amoral cynicism, subjectivism and hooliganism that men may imagine themselves free to utter any sort of irrational judgment and to suffer no consequences, but in fact a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exists in objective reality and are open to the independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols Soviet Russia, or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents, or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash, it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.

It is their fear of this responsibility that prompts most people to adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality. It is the fear best expressed in the precept "judge not that ye be not judged." But that precept in fact, is an abdication of moral responsibility. It is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for one's self.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices. So long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. So long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims. The moral principal to adopt in this issue is "Judge and be prepared to be judged." The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind arbitrary self righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans, or one's snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites, they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare everybody is white or everybody is black, or everybody is neither black nor white but gray, is not a moral judgment but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment. To judge means, "to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principal or standard." It is not an easy task. It is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, instincts or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principals. It can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounce moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer why and to prove one's case to one's self and to any rational enquirer. The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard one's self as a missionary charged with the responsibility of saving everyone's soul nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means (a) that one must know clearly in full verbally identified form one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals and act accordingly, (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation available to others when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debate, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required, but in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced and to keep silent. Moral values are the motive power of man's actions. By pronouncing moral judgments one protects the clarity of ones own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue. It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors or knowledge or with human evil. Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor in dread of discovering that those they deal with, their loved ones or friends or business associates or political rulers are not merely mistaken but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help, and to spread the evil who's very existence they fear to acknowledge. If people did not indulge in the abject evasions as to claim that some contemptible liar means well, that a mooching bum can't help it, that a juvenile delinquent needs love, that a criminal doesn't know any better, that a power seeking politician is moved by patriotic concern for the public good, that communists are merely agrarian reformers, the history of the past few decades or centuries would have been different. An irrational society is a society of moral cowards, of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principals and goals. But since man have to act so long as they live, such a society is ready to be taken over by anyone willing to set it's direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men. Either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values, or from the thug who's not troubled by questions of responsibility.

08/08/2011

Noah Webster, one of our founding fathers knew the Bible better than perhaps any other of the founding fathers and employed it to author the first American dictionary. Here is how Webster defines judging and since the topic of judgment is so tied to reputation, I included the definition of ‘reputation’ from that Dictionary

JUDG’ING, ppr. Hearing and determining; forming an opinion; dooming.

REPUTA’TION, n. [L. reputatio.] 1. Good name; the credit, honor or character which is derived from a favorable public opinion or esteem. Reputation is a valuable species of property or right, which should never be violated. With the loss of reputation, a man and especially a woman, loses most of the enjoyments of life. The best evidence of reputation is a man’s whole life. 2. Character by report; in a good or bad sense; as, a man has the reputation of being rich or poor, or of being a thief.

In my understanding of judgment’s use according to the scriptures, we are called to be discerning of good and evil, right and wrong, as well as good, better, and best. Focusing on levels of wrong are not emphasized so far as I have observed. In fact, we are called to meditate on whatever is good, profitable, nice, beautiful, etc., One of the most overexposed and least regarded scriptures outside of the Christian community is Jesus’ command to hate the sin, not the sinner. Inside the Christian community, this commandment is paramount. Given the dual use of the term’ judging’ we can see a misrepresentation of the intended use. When a Christian is judged for judging, the term ‘judged’ to the secularist means condemned while the Christian’s practice in judging is hearing and determining, forming an opinion. Given that there are indeed consequences to the opinions formed, the secularist may feel condemned whether they are or not in reality. What is ‘felt’ is not relevant in the sense of intent, but is relevant in the acceptance or rejection of such judgment/opinions. So, while the Christian is exercising their God given responsibility to use their judgment the recipients of those opinions are offended or often experience real consequence through the social structures formed about them. In reality, the Christian opinion is far more likely to be the most benevolent of natural opinions among the general population. A secularist will be far harder on one for whom they have a sense of repulsion. If a Christian rejects a worldview or behavior or suggestion, they are not directed by the scriptures to condemn the person involved in the behavior or who has made the suggestion or subscribed to the worldview. Christians are in fact commanded to love that person, even if that person is an actual enemy. (love does not mean approval) It is for this reason that our sub-culture has a far more peaceful internal existence than other sub-cultures. This commandment sets up an ideal to compare our behavior to our Maker and consider His view of the ’sinner’ rather than comparing and weighing our relative guilt to the transgressor, using experience as the springboard for grace rather than condemnation. If we rely on the scales, often both sides claim the higher righteousness and competitions ensue creating an environment of hostility. In comparing ourselves to Jesus, we have no right to a claim of righteousness outside of His grace and so, can extend that grace to others.

Speechless

From the outside looking in, it is often observed that Christians are the most judgmental of our population. There are several reasons for this.

First, Christians aren’t born Christian. In order to become a Christian, one has to choose to be a Christian along with the requisite commitment to obedience to God’s will. Often this choice hasn’t taken place until that person has reached their 30’s and some Christians don’t become Christian until they are on their death beds. So even though they proudly wear the brand and can be well up in years, they haven’t learned the way Christ taught us to behave and since Christians are encouraged to use their judgment by the scriptures, the initiate will begin to act in ways he or she perceives other Christians do while having little to no knowledge of the instructions the Bible actually gives.

Second, some wear the brand and never study the scriptures to employ them. If you don’t know what the Bible says, you can’t apply the teachings of Christ no matter how many Sunday meetings you sleep through. One cute little skit often performed in progressive churches has several people on stage acting like a car, a plane, etc., and stating something to the effect, “I’m in a garage so I must be a car. No. Being in a garage does not make one a car. I’m in a church, I must be a Christian. No. Being in church does not make you a Christian.”

Third, we are called to discern who teaches and applies the scriptures accurately. Just because you know what the Bible says does not mean you choose to follow what the Bible says. There are people serving as pastors or ministers who have great knowledge of the scriptures and use that knowledge to excuse their behaviors and desires rather than submit to the will of God. All of these reflect a bad light on the Christian brand and this is why we are called by Jesus to judge by the content of the character rather than by fine clothing or hairstyle or position or anything else. So many of those hardest hit by Christian judgment are those taking advantage of the formerly good Christian brand name as we attempt to weed out what we call false Christianity and call into accountability assumptions about the Christian doctrine.

Our society is very rich in material things historically. This wealth has spoiled our sense of what’s important and the Christian is no exception. Very few in our culture understand the immediacy or impending doom that can occur with the collapse of wealthy economies. Our faith in material wealth is strong though history teaches us that success is a fleeting and unfaithful mistress. We no longer depend on one another the way our forebears have. What this means is that we can pretend to be self sufficient and need not be concerned with the opinions others hold for our worth and friendship. Even the present day Christian can fall into this attitude and take little concern for offensive behavior and hurt feelings even if they are committed to learning and applying the scriptures as best they can.

Finally, new guys have a lot of zeal for their new found ‘truth.’ I walked this earth for many years before I understood the benefit of living by a standard I often don’t understand, but now know to be freeing rather than constrictive. That experience of ‘getting it’ after so long trying to live in my best understanding of wisdom apart from Christ, is both exciting and saddening. Its exciting because you gain all kinds of hope for your existence verified by experience and saddening as you watch others behaving in such obviously self destructive patterns when a simple commitment and practice would save them so much heart ache. In all that ignorant zeal, the initiate knows very little about Jesus’ will but they also know very little about the prejudices against the Christian. So they go out to everybody they know or even total strangers and try to inform and convert them with this new found knowledge of all the benefits of constraining their behavior according to the scriptures. In many cases they come off as offensive. In many cases they try to insist you accept their message, especially if they are still broken enough to feel the rejection of their faith is rejection of them personally.

We are called to avoid bad behavior and in that endeavor we are supposed to judge others’ character. We carefully choose our mentors and teachers to find what God really wants of us and for us, and to protect ourselves from false teachers and leaders. It is very easy to be led up a rosy path that appeals to our base nature and ends in destruction. It is very difficult to ferret out the way of righteousness in the sight of God so we become incensed by false morality. Each one of us must be responsible for ourselves, for the choices we make and for the mentors we choose to follow and support. This includes the secular world in which we dwell. We carefully choose our friends and politicians and associations. We carefully consider whom we will grant any authority to. We carefully consider who our children will be taught by and who they hang out with. We carefully consider what studies are available and who authored them and what motives and bias they may have. Anyone with wisdom will do the same whether a believer or not.

“Is this person a Christian?” Is their Christianity worn for the supposed benefit of the brand name or because they know Christ? If this person is not a Christian, what moral code are they operating under? How committed to their own moral code are they? Is that moral code decent enough to leave my children in their charge? Would I let my newly converted friend take morality lessons from this person? These are the kinds of questions a Christian is asking themselves as they evaluate the circumstances of their environment. It isn’t any different than most parents who have the intent of raising healthy children or in anybody choosing friends and mentors; or it shouldn’t be any different. This is far from malicious condemnation. This is the requirement to live in a world where cheats and murderers thrive. A good reputation can be earned and it can be murdered. Cheats earn bad reputations and try to cover them by murdering the reputations of their neighbors. This should be motivation enough to exercise good judgment, but this generation is far more concerned with tolerance than survival.

When we are sound in our faith and understanding of your behavior patterns, our desire is to bring you into the knowledge of the goodness of God. It is not our desire to force anyone to believe as we do. That went out with the Inquisition. Nobody will be dragged to heaven kicking and screaming. Its unfortunate that some are dragged to church that way. It breeds contempt for the faith and worse, for God. God has made his reward by invitation only, meaning “You are cordially invited-” You are free to disregard the invitation. Your choice is your choice. Our only part in the process is to deliver the invitation. If that’s offensive, it can’t be helped. Our motivation is immense and due entirely to our knowledge of the consequences of not knowing Him or His ways. Real experiential knowledge of the consequences in this life and the huge difference He makes in our quality of life in the present as well as the promises He’s made for the future.

The most important part of this message is this; we are just trying to survive in a dangerous world and we are doing it with a moral standard handed down to us through the scriptures. That moral standard requires us to use judgment in a self protective way and with the intention of benefiting (as we understand the concept of beneficial) the whole of society including our enemies. Since we have held the majority in this country from its inception, this means our opinions and judgments have real political clout limiting the desires of many other subcultures built on self destructive behaviors. Our opinions do have real consequences in the lives of teachers who would be assigned to teach our children, bosses who would be assigned to exercise authority over our time and compensation, co-workers assigned to help us accomplish the tasks of our jobs, neighbors we rub shoulders with in our day to day lives, etc., but we do not set out to destroy anyone, but to bring the blessings we know through experience to a society bent on self destruction at every level. The Christian mature in their faith, will design their lives around the agenda and goal of providing an example of patient righteousness with peace and benevolence to each and every person they encounter on every occasion. Again, this does not mean accepting others’ definitions of good, but is limited to the scope of what the Bible declares good. Our political power often breeds resentment among those limited by our influence in the legislative process, but there is a gulf of difference between limitations and recriminations as practiced by religions the resentful try to compare the Christian religion to. ie. Islam.

It is a lofty goal to be examples of patience and righteousness and often goes far from accomplished. My only question to you is, “Is the failure to attain the perfect goal reason enough to abandon any attempt to reach it and will you continue to condemn the Christian community as they endeavor to reach that goal?” When I judge you, ideally my judgment is based on a set, unchanging standard which is proven worthy over and over again, most notably in the founding of this nation to provide for a society of liberty and the right to pursue happiness. That liberty requires accountability and personal responsibility. We are not interested in dictating lifestyle to anyone as we are frequently charged. We are not interested in invading your private life and forcing you to live by our standards. We are voting our conscience to maintain a free and open society which is most beneficial to all. We are inviting you to come out of self destructive lifestyles and habits. I'm sorry you feel condemned, limited, and your privacy invaded, and I'm sorry we are not perfect examples of Christ's love, but we cannot be other than we are and abide by the teachings of Christ in our imperfect natures. Neither can we be discouraged from using our judgment to improve ourselves, our society, and offer you hope apart from your love of self destructive lifestyles.

08/04/2011

Recently I posted an article highly critical of expert advice. I thought it might be beneficial to my readers to explain how I spot credible experts. Understand, I am not reviewing venues of information, I am reviewing people I esteem to be wise. These people can teach me how to evaluate data and draw the most profitable conclusions from the raw data. My filters are simple and easy to employ, with two caveats. We are dependent on experts in so many ways because nobody can be expert on more than a few topics and few of us are truly expert on even one, never mind every topic of import. If we are ever to discern truth from the myriad of views on so many topics of such great import, we must first discern who is able to draw wisdom from the available data. It isn't that the data is not available as much as it is that the agenda and prejudice of our advisors prevents even licensed, proclaimed, paid, esteemed experts from discerning what the data means and therefor what course we should chart through life's current events.

The first filter I'll call the BS filter. This is a very course filter which screens out the obvious propaganda and ideology-fueled, false conclusions from all sides of any issue. I pay attention to the names associated with these venues of mis-information so I can quickly dismiss anything they contribute in the future. Quite literally their contribution is more often detrimental to your personal navigation of life, than beneficial.

The second filter is a lot more difficult to spot, but once spotted, I know what topic I can most assuredly receive conclusive information from this individual on. This one is slightly finer and I call it the "Aha" filter. In reading their testimony on the moment they focused on their area of expertise, they testify they realized they had been misinformed by the established wisdom dissemination machine or they were required to purposefully misinform in order to preserve their status with the establishment. Here are examples of a topic which is highly covered but has few true wisdom filled informants.

Close

Lori Gottleib wrote an article which led to a book called "Marry Him." In both she describes herself as a Liberal and a feminist. As a feminist she advises women to settle for Mr. Good Enough rather than holding out and insisting on Mr. Perfect. This was met with extreme rejection by her feminist cohorts. Even so, her testimony included the realization that she was the reason she was alone, she had chosen to become a single mother and skip the messy marriage part since Mr. Perfect seemed to be non-existent, but that she had cheated herself, that a man has much to contribute to her life and that she and her child were missing this contribution because she insisted on perfection or nothing and preferred nothing. So, I learned by this testimony that I could trust her input on the women's movement promoting self deprivation in the relationship department. She was speaking against conventional wisdom in the women's activist movement via personal observations. I still can't trust anything she has to contribute on politics, religion, morality, or even assessing the value of men.

Closer

Another individual I came across is a psychologist who sat on the board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and who sacrificed his popularity and position with NOW by refusing to promote the NOW agenda when it was refuted by the inconvenient facts. His name is Warren Farrell and his "aha" moment was the requirement that truth be sacrificed for the radical agenda of NOW, even by the establishment media. His politics and conclusions remain liberal to this day, but he writes and speaks the truth he personally observes about how men and women relate. Given his liberal tendencies, his advice is skewed on how to value the other gender, but he does observe and recognizes the devaluation of men by general society.

Closest

A few months later, Dennis Prager invited a guest on his show who not only had written some books on male/female relationships, but began an organization (PAX) which held seminars to train men and women to relate to each other in healthy and the most beneficial ways. Her name is Allison Armstrong. This woman is amazing, but her "aha" moment as she tells it was when her girlfriend called her and told her about talking to a man about why men start out being princes and then turn into frogs. His answer didn't go over so well with the girlfriend but Allison was able to receive it through the girlfriend since she was not the direct target, and make use of it. He'd said to the girlfriend, "Oh I get it, you're a frog farmer. Some women kiss frogs and turn them into princes, but you kiss princes and turn them into frogs." On hearing this story from her girlfriend, Allison had visions of a big white farmhouse with rows and rows of frogs with men's faces starting with her ex-husband and progressing through all the successive boyfriends she'd ever had. Counter-intuitively, she found this empowering. Up to this point she'd thought herself powerless with men, but if she had the power to make princes into frogs then if she could just find out how she was doing it, she could reverse the process and turn the frogs into princes. The result was in a few years her friends were asking her to teach them how to be with men. I can trust this woman's contribution on the topic of gender valuation implicitly. Not only did she have the 'aha' moment, but she successfully used that moment to completely reverse her course along socio-gender valuation, moral and political paths as she learned that men aren't the typical simpletons everyone knew we are. That she and all women can have the spouse/mate they've always desired through receiving with an open mind, some unattractive facts and drawing new conclusions.

This leads me to the finer third filter which I'll call the truthing conversion. This one requires a radical result from the 'aha' moment as the expert investigated further, now that they were on the right track to discovering true information. Warren Farrell was committed to his truth as he knew it and that was a radical commitment, but his stubborn adherence to previous conclusions prevented him from successfully incorporating new information along the same radical path to complete enlightenment. Allison was completely transformed from feminist to open minded willing recipient of unattractive data. She had to toss out all previous conclusions on her topic of expertise. Plus, realizing how wrong she and the entire establishment had the topic, she looked a little further and realized the same was probably true in every other area of social import.

The fourth and finest filter I employ I'll call the 'mutual uncommon knowledge' filter. This is knowledge that is common between the expert and myself but uncommon among the general populace. Since I am most knowledgeable on the topic of faith and morality, if the expert holds many of the same conclusions with the available data as do I then most likely he or she has been through many of the same kinds of trials as I. Therefor they reached their conclusions the same way as I and I reached mine by 'aha' realization, by investigation for myself, and by open-minded self evaluation with unattractive data. I was and often still am my own worst enemy. I must regularly evaluate my prejudices, my motivations, and my conclusions in nearly every topic especially with regard to unattractive data. I can more fully trust the conclusions of experts with whom I identify on this level. They, like me are forced to a continual re-examination of the relevant data and re-evaluation of personal prejudice and motivations. The implicit caveat here is you must have enough experience, (you must have tossed out all former conclusions to re-investigate and re-evaluate the available data in a common area of knowledge) to compare experiences to others.'

BS filter

aha filter

truthing filter

MUK (mutual uncommon knowledge) filter

There is yet another filter and this filter is reserved for the people and ideas that are most intimate to my life. I hinted at it in the fourth filter but this one is based on a common experience with the God we have in common. The closer their experience with God, to mine, the deeper my trust in their capacity to discern wisdom from and through the Bible, commentaries, and other Spirit inspired works. I don't mean their sin and recovery have to reflect mine, I do mean their perception of God must reflect my own, as in God is real and present and wonderful and working on me right now. I value contributions by these people and ideas as the 'Living Water' described in John 4:14. Always, always this information must line up with the information in the Bible. If it opposes the Bible, it is wrong, period, end of discussion.

If you are looking for expert advice on any topic, these are my recommendations:

1. Find an expert that is reputed to have uncommon wisdom in his area of expertise.

2. Find an expert that does not rely on conventional wisdom nor accepts data without investigation.

3. Find an expert that demonstrably improves the general knowledge in the area of his expertise.

4. Find an expert you can relate to vicariously via his or her testimony on uncommon knowledge you share.

5. When you find the expert you can trust, you still need to evaluate his contribution on every topic, especially the one you sought him or her out for. Nobody is perfect and nobody has 100% accuracy rates even in their field of study and expertise.

6. As far as is possible, investigate for yourself the topic you expect to receive advice in, as deeply as you can.

7. Nothing you hear is going to be properly screened without the preparation of reading, understanding and applying the life lessons learned through the scriptures.

Some of my vicarious mentors do not fit this model exactly. Those who do not stood out in their youth as extraordinary, deep, mature, and/or were considered wise beyond their years. For instance, Jack Hayford was a youth apart from his peers in the sense that he was a practicing and committed Christian while the rest were accepting the directions and submitting to the establishment we now know to be primarily misinformants. My mentors don't have to be practitioners of the same religion as mine, but they must hold the same values as do I, especially within their area of expertise.

At some point in your collection of experts/mentors, you come to the realization of a trend and the hunt for mentors doesn't require the elementary stages of investigation. You still must bring skepticism to every bit of advice and to every conclusion, but the general notion of what to look for begins to take on a recognizable shape, in my case Christian conservatism, Jewish conservatism, laissez faire economics, but always always confirm truth via experience and where experience is unattainable, long established standards like the Bible and the Constitution of the United States.

While I have personal relationships with people I consider mentors, here is a list of experts I use as vicarious mentors.